potato

was there a signed contract, though? the arrangement you're describing has not stood up in court. you cannot print in the materials any limitations on transfer after "first sale" (which actually means the transfer from distributor to customer, and includes gifts) and expect that to hold up in court. if there isn't a signed lease, the tapes weren't leased. if there isn't a signed rental agreement, the tapes weren't rented. if there isn't a signed lending agreement, the tapes weren't loaned. if twi did not meet the conditions of licensing their tapes, then they had no legal right to show up on anyone's doorstep and demand them back, regardless of what their records say. in fact, they shouldn't have been allowed to reclaim their property without a warrant and a sheriff in attendance, after proving in court that they had a claim on the tapes. you think that I think I'm an attorney? how do you know I think that? I asked how you know the tapes belong to twi and how they're avoiding the first sale doctrine. they can claim ownership all they want, but without a contractual agreement, copyright law prevails over twi's delusional ideas of ownership.

where I was greeted by the spirit of Uncle Harry. I stopped short and started to turn to run in the other direction. "COME HERE," his voice bellowed. "SIT." I nervously sat down. Donna walked into the small clearing, a sheaf of papers in her hand. "it's come to our attention that your finances are not in order as you were directed before joining the corps. you're going to have to leave. I've arranged a meeting with Rev. M. he'll figure out what to do with you." with that, she frowned and stalked away.

how do you know that? I already asked if there was a signed contract stating terms of use. if there wasn't, then twi only had first sale rights and after that they cannot control where a tape or set of tapes or a syllabus goes.

yes, but that would only have to do with your rights to make and distribute copies, not with the question of whether twi has the right to control something they originally distributed. WD made the assertion that twi controls who has access to the tapes, and I asked if there is a contract between twi and the borrower. if there isn't, then there was a transfer of ownership and first sale doctrine applies, which means the owner can dispose of the tapes however they like. additionally, anyone who obtained the tapes subsequent to the original "owner" or "borrower" (it remains to be seen which it is) has not broken any laws and can distribute the tapes as they see fit. twi's only recourse is to go after the original borrower for breach of contract. they can't claim tangible property that they haven't legally established is theirs.

timing is only relevant if the tapes are copies and not originals.

how did they specify it? is there a written contract signed by each person receiving the tapes, or a blanket contract filed somewhere signed by each borrower, as we do when we apply for a library card? what I want to know is if there is a legal contract. if not, then the physical transfer of the tapes from twi to an individual qualifies as "first sale" and twi's downstream rights to control are terminated. plus, anyone purchasing the tapes on good faith is not bound by any contract entered into by someone else with twi, so they are free to dispose of the tapes as they see fit.

you can't legally make and sell copies of copyrighted material unless you have permission. I'm talking about something else. if twi handed over those tapes without a written contract prior to transfer specifying the conditions of their return, the person in possession can sell them, give them away, whatever, but they can't make copies for sale unless twi forgot to copyright the tapes. legally, twi can't now come along and say "we only loaned those out" unless there's a contract somewhere that says so. if there's no contract, their rights to first distribution have expired.

it's perfectly legal to sell those tapes unless the current owner entered into a written contract that specifies the materials are licensed for specific use and must be returned to twi when certain conditions are met. otherwise, first sale doctrine applies (the copyright owner can only control the first distribution of a tangible item) and they're free to sell them to whoever they want for as much as they want.

excellent job of taking the statement out of context in such a predictable manner, rather than recognize it as an example of why presumption of innocence isn't practical outside of the courtroom. just imagine what twi would be like if they were required to operate under presumption of innocence??? or any business that has employees... or any school... etc. etc. etc.

he was a victim of delusions of grandeur fed him by vpw. did it start earlier, I wonder? did his parents raise him to think he was more special than he really was? did they plant the seeds of narcissism that vpw fanned to full flame? he had a choice. everyone makes them every day. I was raised by a psychotic drug-using whore, who was who she was because of a personality disorder. I don't know what made her that way... maybe she was spoiled as a young child, only to have all the attention diverted from her when my grandfather fell gravely ill? or when a younger sibling had medical needs that took all the family resources? who knows. all I know is that my childhood was painful and I grew up and came face to face with the necessity to change or continue to live in hell, torturing myself for a past I had no real control over. It was at that point I made a decision to change, to not parent like my mother did, and I have found that I'm not my mother. that decision in part led me to get involved in twi, because I was looking for health and wholeness and self-control. unfortunately twi did the opposite of what was promised, but after my divorce I came face to face with the fact that twi had turned me into a b!tch. at that point I could have hidden my head in the sand and maintained my "righteousness", but I did not. I was victimized by my mother, I was victimized by my ex and by leaders in twi, but I'm not their victim anymore. I severed ties to all of them. I will not let anyone do what they did to me again. lcm undoubtedly been presented with scores of opportunity to wake up and he's chosen not to, as far as can be seen, so if he ever was a victim he hasn't been one for a long time. if he has changed, I welcome him to get on this bbs and start making apologies.

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest we stick to the topic of whether some dead guy is entitled to silence from his victims (rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual assault of a minor, etc) because of "presumption of innocence" to which has been amply proven he is not entitled. I really couldn't care less about WD's sideline as supplier of vpw materials on CD. it's more his weird assumptions that the dead MOG's reputation must be guarded at the expense of other people's constitutional rights that I find interesting.

because he wasn't into it.

I let go of what I learned in twi and I'm currently rooting out the biased thinking that grew because I followed them and their twisted world-view. I can't think of anything I learned because of twi that I care much for. I was already conscious of good and evil. I was already on a quest to learn more about the bible. I would have learned what's still useful to me regardless of twi, which is familiarity with scripture. twi just sidetracked me into a narrow-minded way of life that I'm glad I've left behind.

actually, I don't. I don't respond much to what you say because I usually don't have the time to analyze run-on sentences without punctuation that change subject and object midstream and I'd rather not mistake what someone is trying to say. I already apologized for misconstruing your statements as implications against women who were forced to have sex under duress (which in many states IS considered rape, never mind the girls who were drugged, and I'm not going to go through and pick out posts for you when you can read the information already provided, which if you did, you'd realize how ridiculous your claim is that excathedra is the only person to name vpw as a sexual predator who committed sexual crimes against her).

my apologies, pond, if I misunderstood what you were getting at. I have a hard time sorting through your posts. it was the following portions of your posts that made me think you were implying vpw's victims had weakness of character... because they "let" it happen to them, then they didn't report it. and as far as this: and this there are statutes of limitations that require sexual assault be reported within a certain time-frame. from what I remember of the catholic church rapes, the statute had not run out for the young men pressing charges. also, perhaps you cannot call "attempted rape" "rape", but both are forms of sexual assault, which vpw most certainly committed on what appears from the evidence to be a regular basis.

that's quite an accusation, pond. I'm really glad you prosecuted the man who committed a crime against you, for your sake. however, I take issue with your implication that women who did not prosecute suffer from weakness of character. you gotta remember, back in the days when vpw was doing his thing, that first the girl would have had to get access to the police, then it would have been her word against his since we didn't have dna forensics. then she would have had to stand in court when the defense had free rein to shred her character, or to argue that because she agreed to have sex it was consensual, and never mind that threats were made or there was pressure brought about by awareness of consequences other's had suffered for saying NO. from the testimony I read, it seems vpw chose his victims pretty well. he chose the most submissive women, women who looked up to him, who could be easily influenced, women under duress. rape goes unreported all the time because the victims are afraid or ashamed. that doesn't mean a rape didn't occur or that the victim can never talk about it because she (or he) didn't go to the police at the time.

amen, Jeff. and seriously, if anyone (read, any of the vpw-worshipping organizations) is stupid enough to take someone who's told their story of being victimized by vpw to court for libel, I'll donate money toward their defense. it's not hard to get your legal fees back when you win a case (as I know from experience) and I don't like seeing people bullied into shutting up when they tell the truth. I got enough of that in twi.

yep. this thread has been a very rich source for studying logical fallacies. for that alone, I hope WD keeps going because so far he hasn't failed to disappoint. I find some of the fallacies (ad hominem) are really difficult to sort out because there are so many and they're so closely related, and I really need the practice. it's also a bit like reading a monty python script. WD, you continue to sidestep most of the issues we've put before you, for instance vpw's victims' rights to free speech and where the burden of proof actually lies. the accounts of vpw's victims are documented cases. anyone can attempt to refute them in court whenever they like, THEN presumption of innocence will apply to the defendant (vpw's victim) and the burden of proof will lie with the plaintiff (the one protecting vpw's reputation).

you're wrong. vpw's victims are not under burden of proof. they have the constitutional right to tell their story without synthetic obstructions like your so-called presumption of innocence.

wouldn't dogged adherence to information proven untrue be APEITHEIA?

actually, for the record, the claims have been documented. methinks you should go back and read the federal rules of evidence again. at this point, in a court of law, the documented testimony of vpw's victims would have to be proven false, so this entire discussion is based on an ignorant and/or misinformed assumption of what VPW's rights are as a deceased citizen of the US.

we don't know that she was naked. doesn't say she was in a tub. she might have been washing off dust and sweat in a basin once it cooled off. nothing suggests she was acting inappropriately. in fact, I'd venture a guess that she was acting with discretion, having waited for the evening. how was she to know that David stayed home from the war and slept all day, then stumbled upon an opportunity to indulge in some voyeurism?

actually it's not that easy to find out on the internet whether people have been in trouble with the law. most criminal and legal cases are not published on the internet. usually you have to go to wherever records are stored, county by county, and look through the archives. if you can't do it, you have to hire a researcher. yep.

it is healthy and I think it's essential to embrace it because it's a part that was broken off of us. all the years we weren't allowed to feel it until it was too much to hold in and it came out sideways... that's unhealthy. standing silently by to witness examples of "righteous" anger that stomped people into the dirt and ripped them apart... that's unhealthy. I think learning to recognize our own anger and deal with it on the spot is essential to wiping the demons of twi out of our souls.

when did it become proper musical etiquette to stare at the audience and smile the whole time? I heard a "teaching" about how devilish and egotistical it was to close your eyes when you play. I never looked at it that way. I just figured a musician was absorbed. everyone has different personalities after all and I couldn't see the big deal about how it worked best for them to play.